I read about this on another site, and I'm really glad it is happening. Something else they need is to start getting behind a VR standard rather then how it is now; split three ways: Vive, Occulus, and WMR.

This is fantastic. My one main concern is the video bandwidth. As headsets move towards higher resolutions this will be a limiting factor looking at full frame transmission. Out of the gate this standard precludes 4k per eye headsets at 90Hz without compression (which may add latency). Even 4k per eye isn't the end game for headsets with a reasonably wide field of view... pixels and aliasing will still be visible due to the FOV and close proximity to the eye.

This may not be a concern if eye tracked foveated rendering is introduced and incorporated into the frame transmission protocol. In that case only the pixels directly in a 5-18° arc from the point of focus need to be fully rendered, with gradual falloff in effective pixel density towards the peripheral vision range. The problem is this doesn't work particularly well with traditional rectangular frame buffers that current hardware expects. If this is solved headsets can easily incorporate 8k per eye screens while transmitting the equivalent of 1080p or 1440p full frame pixels.

Isn't USB 3.1 Gen2 limited to <1m? How is that useful for a VR headset?

They have not clarified yet how are they dealing with that. They might need to have better specced cables or active cables.

Could be USB C to a box that wirelessly connects to the headset. I haven't had a chance to try out the Vive with the wireless add on, but it is pretty alluring. I don't see cabled in headsets lasting too long against wireless in the future.

This is definitely a great step towards a more simple setup for VR headset users. My major concern is that current desktop PC users will have to rely on some sort of adapter to take DisplayPort and combine it with a USB 3.0 port, since no current GPUs ship with USB C as a connection option. Future graphics cards could ship with a USB C port, but then the card would either need a passthrough connection to the internal USB 3.0 header or would need a USB controller onboard. Most motherboards only come with one USB 3.0 header, meaning that connecting your GPU to the header would leave a couple case ports dead.

Laptops have an easier route, since they are already supporting pushing the GPU video signal over USB C, and I suppose this sort of connection is more important for a mobile VR system. I'm curious to see how Nvidia and AMD will deal with the need to bring USB 3.1 onboard their new GPUs.

I also have concerns about the 60 Hz limit for two 4k streams. It will be a while before we get headsets that can push two 4k screens at 90 Hz, and even longer before a mainstream GPU could even push that level of performance, but somehow I feel that using the stream compression from the DisplayPort spec might add some artifacts to the experience, or introduce lag in a very latency sensitive application. I could see there being a "VR port 2.0" in the future once 90 Hz 2x4k becomes possible with a new revision of DisplayPort.

Isn't USB 3.1 Gen2 limited to <1m? How is that useful for a VR headset?

Besides the cable length issue, I really doubt the type-C connector is designed to deal with the forces of being moved around in the way one connected to a VR headset would be. Not insurmountable, but the standard really isn't designed for this.

Isn't USB 3.1 Gen2 limited to <1m? How is that useful for a VR headset?

They have not clarified yet how are they dealing with that. They might need to have better specced cables or active cables.

Could be USB C to a box that wirelessly connects to the headset. I haven't had a chance to try out the Vive with the wireless add on, but it is pretty alluring. I don't see cabled in headsets lasting too long against wireless in the future.

I have a Rift. I can say that the stupid cables are the biggest problem with it.

The problem though isn't that I have to plug in two cables (USB + HDMI) (Actually it is 5 cables if you include the 3 sensors and 6 if you include the dongle for the Xbox controller) The problem is that you have to have a cable at all. The headset would be so much cooler if they could somehow make it wireless.

This should have happened sooner. And the fact that its happening now suggests unpleasant things about the practicality of wireless solutions.

It's still impractical to run 1080p60fps over a wireless VGA/HDMI setup, let alone anything of a higher resolution or refresh rate. Not only that, but it has to be done for a device that will supposedly be battery-powered. Truly wireless VR setups are a long ways off unless you're happy with Google Daydream.

I read about this on another site, and I'm really glad it is happening. Something else they need is to start getting behind a VR standard rather then how it is now; split three ways: Vive, Occulus, and WMR.

I don't think a single connector means a single standard. We're still going to have to deal with three different software platforms; this just means that the video, data, and power all come on the same wire, now.

The Anandtech article about this mentions that they're using a feature of the USB-C specification which lets them now switch the USB 2.0 pins to USB 3.0 after the initial negotiation has taken place. With that being the case, I wish this was just an iteration of the DisplayPort alt mode, rather than a whole new alt mode for VR.

I mean, as an example, I'd love this in a standard flat monitor. I've got a 4k USB-C monitor currently, and it's great... but it'd be even better if the USB ports on the back of it were able to use high-speed data as well.

This should have happened sooner. And the fact that its happening now suggests unpleasant things about the practicality of wireless solutions.

Wired connections give you a much more reliable method of transmitting data in real time, which is important for high frame-rate, high-resolution, interactive media. The bandwidth you need is huge for uncompressed video (for example, the 2x 2560x1440 screens at 120fps scenario is more than 21gbps for 8-bit video data). Once you add compression for wireless transmission you add latency. Without significant advances in consumer-grade wireless transmission we won't be seeing top level VR wirelessly connecting to its base-station any time soon in the consumer space.

I read about this on another site, and I'm really glad it is happening. Something else they need is to start getting behind a VR standard rather then how it is now; split three ways: Vive, Occulus, and WMR.

Well, Vive and WMR both implement OpenVR which is why headsets for one platform are able to be used with the software for another. It's still a bit of a hoop to jump through as you have to launch both VR software suites in order to use software across platforms but it's a close fit otherwise. But, yeah, full interoperability via a single standard would be great.

Isn't USB 3.1 Gen2 limited to <1m? How is that useful for a VR headset?

They have not clarified yet how are they dealing with that. They might need to have better specced cables or active cables.

The alt-mode they are getting behind was originally forbidden by the USB-C spec because the spec reserves the two additional pins they are re-mapping. The ECR which was submitted to the working group to make this possible was required by certain interests to only do so in a "Direct Attach" situation (captive cables, a dock). Since that's required, it's relatively trivial to make sure your captive cable is an active cable.

The Anandtech article about this mentions that they're using a feature of the USB-C specification which lets them now switch the USB 2.0 pins to USB 3.0 after the initial negotiation has taken place. With that being the case, I wish this was just an iteration of the DisplayPort alt mode, rather than a whole new alt mode for VR.

I mean, as an example, I'd love this in a standard flat monitor. I've got a 4k USB-C monitor currently, and it's great... but it'd be even better if the USB ports on the back of it were able to use high-speed data as well.

Isn't USB 3.1 Gen2 limited to <1m? How is that useful for a VR headset?

Besides the cable length issue, I really doubt the type-C connector is designed to deal with the forces of being moved around in the way one connected to a VR headset would be. Not insurmountable, but the standard really isn't designed for this.

This was my first concern as well. When I ceiling mounted my Rift I made sure to put a strain relief tiedown just before the Rift connectors hit the HDMI/USB extensions so that any yanking on the headset doesn't pull on the connectors.

Moving from already not so robust HDMI/USB-A connectors to the fragile USB-C connector (I've replaced the port on my One+ 3 once already, and the replacement has gone bad in less than a year) seems to exacerbate this problem.

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

The Anandtech article about this mentions that they're using a feature of the USB-C specification which lets them now switch the USB 2.0 pins to USB 3.0 after the initial negotiation has taken place. With that being the case, I wish this was just an iteration of the DisplayPort alt mode, rather than a whole new alt mode for VR.

I mean, as an example, I'd love this in a standard flat monitor. I've got a 4k USB-C monitor currently, and it's great... but it'd be even better if the USB ports on the back of it were able to use high-speed data as well.

That's not permitted by the spec.

Ah, I missed the part that it only is acceptable if it's for direct connect devices.

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

"cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics"

Isn't that true of Thunderbolt-3?

Why not implement this over Thunderbolt-3 which carries USB-C and uses it's connector?

I'm trying just trying to understand, I'm not promoting Thunderbolt-3. Just asking.

Seems like a small difference in specs. Why not work it into the Thunderbolt spec?

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

"cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics"

Isn't that true of Thunderbolt-3?

Why not implement this over Thunderbolt-3 which carries USB-C and uses it's connector?

I'm trying just trying to understand, I'm not promoting Thunderbolt-3. Just asking.

There's probably some patents involved, and someone is no doubt trying to save $5 per device.

Personally, I'd rather they just move to a new connector design if they're going to implement a non-standard connection..

This is definitely a great step towards a more simple setup for VR headset users. My major concern is that current desktop PC users will have to rely on some sort of adapter to take DisplayPort and combine it with a USB 3.0 port, since no current GPUs ship with USB C as a connection option. Future graphics cards could ship with a USB C port, but then the card would either need a passthrough connection to the internal USB 3.0 header or would need a USB controller onboard. Most motherboards only come with one USB 3.0 header, meaning that connecting your GPU to the header would leave a couple case ports dead.

...snip..

For desktop users, this is already the case with current gen HMDs. So, I don't really see it as a concern - you just buy a cable that is USB-C on one end, and USB-A and HDMI/Display Port on the other. This is essentially how the Rift already is - it's a single port on the HMD side (with a proprietary plug) that splits into a USB-A and HDMI. This just means that I can buy a generic cable and not necessarily pay $50 from Oculus.

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

"cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics"

Isn't that true of Thunderbolt-3?

Why not implement this over Thunderbolt-3 which carries USB-C and uses it's connector?

I'm trying just trying to understand, I'm not promoting Thunderbolt-3. Just asking.

There's probably some patents involved, and someone is no doubt trying to save $5 per device.

Personally, I'd rather they just move to a new connector design if they're going to implement a non-standard connection..

It's my understanding that INTEL is going to discontinue the TB royalties this year to promote the spec.

I really don't need another new cable, when TB and USB can reduce it all to one plug.

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

"cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics"

Isn't that true of Thunderbolt-3?

Why not implement this over Thunderbolt-3 which carries USB-C and uses it's connector?

I'm trying just trying to understand, I'm not promoting Thunderbolt-3. Just asking.

There's probably some patents involved, and someone is no doubt trying to save $5 per device.

Personally, I'd rather they just move to a new connector design if they're going to implement a non-standard connection..

It's my understanding that INTEL is going to discontinue the TB royalties this year to promote the spec.

I really don't need another new cable, when TB and USB can reduce it all to one plug.

The article in Anandtech provides a lot of technical details. You will see how VirtualLink is different.

To those with questions about the cabling, I had the same questions, so I read their pre-release document yesterday.

The cabling isn't standard USB-C cable. The only thing that's USB-C about any of this is the single connector that connects the cable to the source equipment. The cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics, and is required to be captive on the headset itself. The cable has DP conditioners on the DP lanes, a USB3 conditioner on the USB3 lane. That USB3 lane uses the connector pins typically used by the USB2 pair and its alternate, meaning there's no USB2 in this. If your headset has any USB2 devices in it, the designer must add a USB3-to-USB2 transaction translator to the USB3 hub in the headset and its kind of a mess. The use of Display Port conditioners for the DP lanes, and a USB3 conditioner for the USB lane means that this cable would never function as a normal USB-C cable, thus the requirement for captivity. Want to replace your cable with a longer one? Nope. Want to use a USB extension? Nope. (Not that you ever should with USB anyway.)

"cable itself is higher grade, contains active electronics"

Isn't that true of Thunderbolt-3?

Why not implement this over Thunderbolt-3 which carries USB-C and uses it's connector?

I'm trying just trying to understand, I'm not promoting Thunderbolt-3. Just asking.

There's probably some patents involved, and someone is no doubt trying to save $5 per device.

Personally, I'd rather they just move to a new connector design if they're going to implement a non-standard connection..

It's my understanding that INTEL is going to discontinue the TB royalties this year to promote the spec.

I really don't need another new cable, when TB and USB can reduce it all to one plug.

That's a good thing. I have a USB C/Thunderbolt connector on my latest NUC, and I really like it.

Aren't high frame rates greater than 60 FPS important to reduce side effects of headache and nausea for VR?

Nah. I have a WMR headset that does 45FPS, and depending on the game, can wear it for a few hours easily. The whole 'headache/nausea' thing may be more dependent on the individual (similar to how some people can't be in a car for more than half an hour without wanting to throw up, but others can read the paper or watch movies for hours on end with no issue).

Can someone please explain to me why VR headsets do not use D-sub connectors?

It seems crazy to me that we're moving to USB-C, a standard developed primarily for phones and laptops that need to be able to connect/disconnect from the port with ease. Why would you want to make it easy to disconnect your VR headset?

At least with D-sub you can clip or screw the connector in place. Sure a 24-pin D-sub is massive, but nobody said you can't make a new version with smaller pins.

If you ask me, I think VR makers need to stop trying to shoehorn together a solution from off-the-shelf parts. We need a completely new connector specifically for VR, USB-C is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Yeah, Intel not having a seat at the table pretty clearly sends the message that the other industry players want to avoid embracing Thunderbolt, despite the fact that it already exists and serves the purpose.

I fully understand why they may not want to be beholden to Intel for Thunderbolt controllers, but cobbling together a bunch of different components to save a few bucks isn't always the best path to widespread adoption (see AMD Lightning Bolt).

VirtualLink will require tethered active cables made with custom drawn cable stock as well as buy-in from the GPU and motherboard partners and PC OEMs... I'm not sure how the VR niche market grows large enough fast enough to allow this exercise to make real economic sense in the PC space. Maybe for consoles, I suppose.

Can someone please explain to me why VR headsets do not use D-sub connectors?

It seems crazy to me that we're moving to USB-C, a standard developed primarily for phones and laptops that need to be able to connect/disconnect from the port with ease. Why would you want to make it easy to disconnect your VR headset?

At least with D-sub you can clip or screw the connector in place. Sure a 24-pin D-sub is massive, but nobody said you can't make a new version with smaller pins.

If you ask me, I think VR makers need to stop trying to shoehorn together a solution from off-the-shelf parts. We need a completely new connector specifically for VR, USB-C is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Unfortunately, it would mean killing off a growing number of customers who use gaming laptops as their go-to rig (looking to get one myself for portable fun and bring it to friends houses to have them try it), unless the VR headset makers can convince laptop manufacturers to start adding them back just for the sake of VR. I would rather VR manufacturers stick with the USB 3.0 + HDMI combination since nearly every desktop and laptop has them as standard ports.